|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why only one Designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
A scam to sell the Brooklyn Bridge correlates more closely to other scams than it does to the Brooklyn Bridge. The Intelligent Design movement is indisputably one and the same as the Christian fundamentalist creationist movement. They are the same people. And these creationists do themselves conflate ID and creationism for their own social purposes when it suits them. But that does not mean that ID and creationism are actually the same thing. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
SavageD writes:
Because of common descent. You have ears because your parents had ears. Why does every living thing require dna, why not some other mechanism for information? Whales, humans and bats have the same hand structure because of common descent, not because it makes any sense to "design" them that way. Human designers don't build submarines, cars and aircraft on the same frame. The fact that there are different eye structures in squid and humans, for example, suggests that if they were designed, it was probably by different departments with poor communication between them. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Yes, that's exactly my point: It doesn't make sense to design them like that. Fish, which live in the same environment as whales, have entirely different swimming structures. Pectoral flippers have all the skeletal elements of the forelimbs of terrestrial mammals... The variety of marine life suggests that there was one designer or group of designers who made fish and different group who made whales and dolphins. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
SavageD writes:
But you can say that they came about by a cycle of chance and selection. You can't say that these things came about by chance either, that'd be preposterous. Even designers select the features that work best and discard the others. All a designer can do is work with natural processes that are already in place. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
SavageD writes:
Yes, life forms are synthetic, synthesized by a natural process of mutation and selection.
Because I observe all other lifeless planets, I personally have reason to believe that life forms are in some way, synthetic. SavageD writes:
Not irrational. Scientific. We know a lot about those mechanisms through observation.
To say that these complex mechanism's came about through a cycle of chance & selection would be irrational. SavageD writes:
Selection is a simple process. A lion "selects" the zebra that he can catch. The one he eats can't pass its genes on to the next generation, so any mutations that it carried are "selected out" of the gene pool. If the cycle is guided by chance then whats selecting? But this topic isn't about design per se. The OP suggests that if life was designed, it was probably by a group of designers instead of one - i.e. the design hypothesis points away from the Christian God. Edited by ringo, : Fixed tense: "is designed" --> "was designed". If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Creationist scams are a subset of scams. Design scams are more closely related to creationist scams and Brooklyn Bridge scams than they are to anything else. Brooklyn bridge scams are a subset of scams. Biblical creationists are a subset of those who believe in Intelligent Design. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I'm saying that to Occam, one god requires one assumption and two gods still only require one assumption.
ringo writes:
Where are you getting that from? As I said, my understanding is that that applies to different kinds of entities, not multiple instances of the same kind. Straggler writes:
It's an answer to a question that wasn't asked.
Regardless - Zero designers remains the most parsimonious conclusion. Straggler writes:
I'm doing exactly the opposite. I'm saying that the "designer" that the "design proponents" are so coy about is one-and-the same, absolutely identical with the God that creationists are so fond of. His name is Yahweh. You are making a distinction between designers and creators that doesn't apply to any religious context. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
In reality, plurality is the rule and uniqueness is the exception. When I see an elephant, I don't think it's an assumption that there are more than one; it's more of an inductive conclusion. By positing two creator-designer gods instead of one you are indisputably positing plurality unnecessarily. It probably isn't wise to use Occam to reverse reality. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
First, we're not talking about the "ultimate" creator-designer of the universe. We're talking about what the supposed "evidence of design" points to. If you dust your new car for fingerprints, you might find some from the guy who installed the radio but you're not going to find Henry Ford's. It's the cdesign proponentsists who make an unnecessary assumption that the two are related. But when you are talking about some sort of ultimate creator-designer of the universe as per that advocated by various religions how much bearing does the evidenced plurality of elephants have on the matter? Second, the unnecessary assumption is that any entity can be singular. Multiplicity is evidenced. Is there only one mountain? Only one cloud? Only one sea-floor vent? Only one ice cap? The idea that the creator is singular, as advocated by some religions, is completely unevidenced. It is purely an unnecessary assumption. It has no more validity than multiple creators. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I think I said early on that I have no interest in discussing "first causes". Nothing I have said has been in reference to anything but the last cause of a design. I'm talking about what the "evidence for design" points to directly. Nothing I have said should be misconstrued otherwise.
Now you want to separate the role of designers from that of creators in a way that makes the whole discussion have little relevance to any religious context at all. Straggler writes:
The assumption of one or more designers is a given in this thread. The question is about how many. I'm saying that "only one" is an additional assumption.
The idea of any creators at all is completely unevidenced. So what is your point? Straggler writes:
I'm not disputing Occam's "unnecessary plurality". I'm saying you misunderstand it. You can dispute Occam's 'unnecessary plurality' as invalid if you like. Edited by ringo, : Added preposition "in" --> "in discussing". If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I think I pointed out earlier in the thread that "intelligent design" has implications for religion that the religious don't anticipate and don't want to hear about. One of them is the likelihood of multiple designers. Another is the necessity of denying any specific God. As far as I'm concerned, when religious people hear about intelligent design, they should run screaming in the opposite direction.
If you are not claiming that your conclusion have any bearing on such religious notions - Then fair enough. Straggler writes:
I've answered that multiple times. The first assumption is that one or more designers exist. The second assumption is that only one exists. Two is more than one.
1) How multiple designers doesn't contradict 'unnecessary plurality'. Straggler writes:
Where are you getting your concept of plurality from? Design is one assumption. 2) Where it is you are getting this interpretation of Occam's 'unnecessary plurality' from? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Fair enough.
The first assumption is that the universe is designed. Straggler writes:
Fair enough.
The logical conclusion is that if the universe is designed something must necessarily have designed it. Straggler writes:
There's where you go wrong. You're making an unstated assumption, a third, unnecessary assumption about the number of designers.
A designer is a logical necessity based on the first assumption. Straggler writes:
You seem to be confused by the terms "entity" and "plurality". As I understand it, Occam's principle refers to logical enities - e.g. assumptions - not "things". An unnecessary plurality of ideas is undesirable. It has nothing to do with a plurality of the things that the ideas are about.
Which is why two or more designers is an unnecessary plurality. Straggler writes:
You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that that's an unnecessary assumption. ... in pretty much any religious context the role of designer and ultimate first-cause-creator are one and the same.... If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
Quantifying the "design presence" is neither logically nor evidentially necessary.
A plurality of designers is however neither logically nor evidentially necessary. Straggler writes:
First, note my signature. You seem to be missing the much stated point that the whole premise of this thread (i.e that the universe is designed) is an unnecessary assumption intended to make some sort of comparison with the designers that are the objects of various religious belief. But if you take only some of the unnecessary assumptions made by the religious and discard others which also pertain to the number of designers they invoke then you are creating a strawman version of their position which there seems little point exploring. Second, my whole premise in this thread is that IDists don't understand the implications of their own assumptions. I don't see why I should have to accept all of their assumptions just to point out the ones that are wrong. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
I'm positing that putting any number on the "design presence" has no logical basis.
I thought you were positing multiple designers on the basis of evidence pertaining to the plurality of human designers? Straggler writes:
Yes. A herd of unicorns is no more or less parsimonious than one.
So as far as you are concerned 999...999 creator-designers is no more or less parsimonious than 1. Is that correct? Straggler writes:
I'm not creating a strawman of ID. ID is inherently made of straw. If you want to create a straw man version of ID re the number of designers and then knock it down I cannot stop you. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
That's a bit like asking how many elephants are required to ride a bicycle. I'm not the one who's making the claim, so I don't feel obligated to have an answer. My point, if you're still insisting on missing it, is that two elephants can ride a bicycle as easily as one.
If you are making direct evidential comparisons with human designers then how many such designers are required to design the universe? Straggler writes:
But I'm not the one who's making that comparison. The IDists are. They're "seeing" design that looks like human design and assuming that their God is responsible for it. Pointing out the flaw in their position is in no way making a strawman of their position. ringo writes:
It is evidentially necessary if you point of comparison is human designers. Quantifying the "design presence" is neither logically nor evidentially necessary. If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024